Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, no, no...no one has a SAY but the married couple.
But it is wrong to say they are the only people who are affected.
You made a good point. When Ohio-p was stating C-society at large, I was thinking how is society at large affected by my divorce, thats crazy. I think C should be family. Family members are definately adversly affected (sometimes) by anothers divorce.
I know a couple marriages that ended when one of the parties became very self destructive, when everyone assumed they were of an age to be on a stable path. This was in part my sister's role in ending her marriage.
There is a guy we know who was was just a few years away from early retirement, assumed to be very stable, who lost everything through his behaviors. He can no longer find a job in the field he worked years in, has basically lost everything.
In some other marriages I've known about, it seemed like one of the parties just wasn't interested in the dynamics of being part of family life, so they just walked away. Typically it is men that will make the choice. However I can say I've known more that one woman who has walked away, and pays child support.
Yeah, everyone is the hero in his own story, but a marriage usually never ends because one person is entirely at fault. It could very well be that a woman cheats, but she might have felt neglected by her husband who spent all of his free time playing video games. Takes two to tango and all.
It's true that almost certainly both parties are at least partially at fault. However, sexual cheating as response to one spouse's obsession with video games? Really? The video-gamer might be dissolute and immature, to but "punish" that behavior with infidelity is just unconscionable turpitude.
It's true that almost certainly both parties are at least partially at fault. However, sexual cheating as response to one spouse's obsession with video games? Really? The video-gamer might be dissolute and immature, to but "punish" that behavior with infidelity is just unconscionable turpitude.
This is an entirely hypothetical situation, so I'm just making stuff up here, but in general, people don't cheat to punish their spouses. I'd venture to guess that the spouse doesn't enter into the thought process other than as a source of guilt. The person who cheats feels lonely and neglected and has made a connection with someone else who, even temporarily, cares about them and their needs. Is it the best way to deal with the situation? Of course not, but it's not that unusual.
Last edited by fleetiebelle; 06-06-2013 at 11:34 AM..
It's true that almost certainly both parties are at least partially at fault. However, sexual cheating as response to one spouse's obsession with video games? Really? The video-gamer might be dissolute and immature, to but "punish" that behavior with infidelity is just unconscionable turpitude.
I hardly think cheating is every meant as a punishment. I think gamer and cheater both just suck. If cheater actually meant it as a punishment, I question their maturity levels.
Given my druthers and were I benevolent queen for a day, I'd remove the state from marriage entirely. I think marriage should be a church thing only. I don't want the state all up in my heart any more than I want it up in my uterus or my bedroom. Please, the state can't even balance its own checkbook. Why on earth would I want it to be arbiter of my personal life?
I agree that society has elevated marriage to an unnatural pedestal. Exaltation of marriage “made sense” in a context where the two genders were regarded as unequal, and the purpose of marriage was a pooling of family resources. If we abjure such biases as outmoded and irrational, then marriage loses its prominence.
However, there is a practical problem: marriage remains the only means by which two unrelated people can become legally tied together. For instance, suppose that I meet a wonderful lady who happens to not have a good job with benefits. How would I add her to my health insurance, unless I marry her? What if I want to file income taxes jointly with her, lowering both of our tax bills? What if I want her to inherit my estate without having to go through trusts or probate?
Speaking personally, my now-ex-wife and I had gotten married for immigration reasons. We are both immigrants. I’ve been here for decades, and she was a recent arrival, on a fiancée visa. If I didn’t marry her, she would have gone back on the proverbial boat. We stayed together long after she obtained her citizenship, so I don’t feel “exploited” as a means to securing documents. But would I have married her if she could live and work here unmolested by the INS? Maybe, maybe not.
Now regarding the question of state intrusion into our personal lives… this is much broader than dating/mating/marriage… it’s really THE pivotal debate of our times… paternalism in highway safety, food labeling, airline security, regulations of various sorts, guns, taxes and social programs. Basically, whenever I feel competent and can handle things on my own, I’m going to resent intrusion. It will feel oppressive and condescending, an impediment to doing my job. But when helpless or ignorant, I’ll take whatever help I can get, even at the cost of abridging my primacy as an individual. Here the “I” isn’t just me personally, but mankind in general.
So what happens in the world of dating and marriage, I think, is that those of us with robust skills in finding a mate, in judging human nature, in communicating and diffusing crises, etc., would prefer a “free market” where neither parents nor the State have anything to do with our sex lives or with our dating adventures. On the other hand, those of us who are clueless would prefer an almost dystopian super-state with arranged marriages and fault-only divorce (or none at all).
However, there is a practical problem: marriage remains the only means by which two unrelated people can become legally tied together. For instance, suppose that I meet a wonderful lady who happens to not have a good job with benefits. How would I add her to my health insurance, unless I marry her? What if I want to file income taxes jointly with her, lowering both of our tax bills? What if I want her to inherit my estate without having to go through trusts or probate?
.
Not necessarily. Many states have domestic partnership laws that don't just apply to same-sex couples.
No, no, no...no one has a SAY but the married couple.
But it is wrong to say they are the only people who are affected.
It's very inaccurate, or can be. And not just for people with kids.
My parents, my dad in particular, was as crushed as I was when my relationship ended. Even though we'd only been together five years, but my parents considered him a son, and loved him. They were devastated to see the true colors, and feel that they'd been duped, same as me. My siblings (well, most of them...my one brother was always - as it turns out, justifiably - wary) had fully embraced him as well. He was actually a part of my sister's wedding party, as was I, when he broke things off, and she had just written up a glowing bio of him for the program, noting how important to her it was that he was a part of our family. Thankfully, it was only proofed and had not gone to the printer yet, so he was able to be deleted. But she, like everyone, was shocked, stunned, and hurt. HIS mom, who considered me a daughter, was in shock, as well, and his grandfather was brokenhearted.
But, yeah, more people than just me were devastated. And this was WITHOUT a marriage, just five years of living together.
So what happens in the world of dating and marriage, I think, is that those of us with robust skills in finding a mate, in judging human nature, in communicating and diffusing crises, etc., would prefer a “free market” where neither parents nor the State have anything to do with our sex lives or with our dating adventures. On the other hand, those of us who are clueless would prefer an almost dystopian super-state with arranged marriages and fault-only divorce (or none at all).
Who would want arranged marriages? I'm going to start a poll on this. At first guess, I don't think on the whole CD users would prefer arranged marriages.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
